Home Office

Modern Slavery: 2018 UK Annual Report on Modern Slavery

Sajid Javid: Today, I am publishing the 2018 UK Annual Report on Modern Slavery. The Report covers the whole of the UK and has been drafted in collaboration with the Northern Ireland Executive, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government. This report sets out an assessment of the scale of modern slavery in the UK, and outlines the actions that have been taken to combat it over the last year.A copy of the report will be placed in the House Library.


This statement has also been made in the House of Lords: 
HLWS989

Ministry of Justice

Justice and Home Affairs post-Council statement

Mr David Gauke: I attended the Justice and Home Affairs Council for Justice Day on Thursday 11 October in Luxembourg. The Council reached a General Approach on the Insolvency Restructuring and Second Chance Directive. During the discussion on E-evidence legislation, Ministers agreed not to include real-time interception within the scope of the Regulation and asked for further work on the extent of the obligation to notify other states when data is sought direct from a service provider. I offered to share UK experience from our bilateral discussions with the US on a data access agreement, which was welcomed by the Commission. With regard to the draft Conclusions on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in 2017, 20 Member States, including the UK, supported the Netherlands proposal for the adoption of “Presidency Conclusions” given the lack of consensus for Council Conclusions. The Director of the Fundamental Rights Agency presented his annual review of the fundamental rights situation in the European Union (EU), noting rising levels of hate crime, including anti-Semitism, and discrimination faced by immigrants and minority groups. He also referred to Roma communities living without basic amenities such as electricity and water. Member States noted these concerns.The Commission updated Ministers on implementation of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). The European Council will discuss the proposal to extend the EPPO to cross-border terrorism offences. The discussion on Enhancing Mutual Trust focused on the importance of mutual recognition, whilst noting the importance of an independent judiciary and the rule of law. The UK intervened to recognise the mutual benefits of continued cooperation, and the UK’s commitment to the principle of mutual trust. The Presidency will prepare Conclusions on mutual trust for the December JHA Council. The Commission presented their Communication on securing free and fair European elections, including protection from personal data misuse and cyber incidents.  The Home Secretary attended Interior day. The Commission set out ambitious plans for a stronger, more effective European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) including a standing corps of 10,000 officers, which would provide substantial support to Member States in protecting the external border. Member States underlined their support for a stronger Frontex, but expressed concerns about the size of the standing corps, its impact on national authorities and the consequences for Member State competence on border protection. The Commission briefly presented the new Return Directive recast and Member States discussed accelerated borders procedures, linking the asylum and returns processes, with asylum claims processed as close to the border as possible and, if refused, the failed asylum seeker returned fast and smoothly. Some Member States focused on the need to maximise third country cooperation on returns and readmission of own nationals. Member States were divided on the mandatory nature of the border procedures. Some Member States supported manifestly unfounded claims at the border leading to an entry refusal rather than a returns decision. Over lunch, Ministers discussed the EU’s comprehensive “whole of route” approach to tackling illegal migration. The Home Secretary focused on strengthening the EU’s response to human traffickers and smugglers advertising online, and boosting our work with African partners on economic development, strategic communications and behavioural insights to prevent migrants from starting dangerous journeys to Europe.Ministers also discussed the balance between solidarity and responsibility. The Presidency, supported by some Member States, proposed broadening the idea of ‘solidarity’ to avoid compulsory reallocation of refugees to Member States who reject this, but who are content to make substantial contributions to other aspects of migration management, including external partnerships with third countries.The Council discussed the JHA funding programmes within the next Multi-Annual Financial Framework. The UK will not participate in these programmes as a Member State. The Presidency called on Member States to establish a strong steering structure to ensure the optimal use of funds. Member States supported provisions to step up cooperation with third countries on migration, but raised questions around flexibility and allocations to Member States. The Presidency updated on progress on the files within the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) package. The Dublin IV proposal, as it links to the issue of solidarity and burden sharing, will be discussed among Leaders at the October European Council.


This statement has also been made in the House of Lords: 
HLWS990

Leader of the House

Draft Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Andrea Leadsom: Today, the Government publishes the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill in draft, which seeks to establish the statutory bodies that will be responsible for the restoration and renewal works within the Parliamentary estate, giving effect to the resolutions passed by Parliament earlier this year. In addition to Parliament having expressed its view in those resolutions, it will also be given an opportunity to vote on the proposed design, cost and timing of the substantive building works relating to the Palace of Westminster. In developing the draft Bill, the Government has worked closely with the House Authorities.The Bill will establish the governance structure within which those bodies will operate. The bodies will have the capacity and capability to make strategic decisions on the Restoration and Renewal Programme, so that the Palace of Westminster can be secured as the UK Parliament for future generations.The Bill establishes a Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body which will have overall responsibility for the Programme and act as a single client on behalf of both Houses. It will also form a Delivery Authority as a company limited by guarantee. The Delivery Authority will formulate proposals in relation to the restoration works, and ensure their operational delivery. The bodies will be independent and able to operate effectively in the commercial sphere, bringing the expertise and capability needed for a project of this scale. This two-tier approach was used to successfully deliver the London Olympics.The Bill also establishes a Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission which will lay the Sponsor Body’s estimates before Parliament, and play a role in reviewing the Sponsor Body’s expenditure.The Government agrees with Parliament that there can be no blank cheque for this work and it must represent good value for taxpayers’ money. The Bill provides that the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority must have regard to value for money when exercising their functions throughout the Programme. The Treasury will be able to review and comment on the annual estimates for the funding of the Programme, and the National Audit Office will be able to undertake audits and value-for-money reviews. Furthermore, the Estimates Commission will have the power to review, comment on, and in certain circumstances reject those annual estimates.It is important that the views of Parliamentarians on the Programme are taken into account. The Sponsor Body will have a majority of Parliamentarians on its Board, alongside external expertise. Parliamentarians will be fully consulted on the strategic direction of the Programme. The Sponsor Body will be required to return to Parliament for approval to make any significant changes to the approved proposals in respect of the Palace. Parliament will also be given an opportunity to vote on the annual expenditure of the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority through the estimates process.We welcome the forthcoming scrutiny of the draft Bill, to ensure that it achieves its aims of a Restoration and Renewal Programme that is sufficiently independent, and that is transparent and accountable to Parliament.

Cabinet Office

Infected Blood Inquiry

Mr David Lidington: On 24th September, I attended the commemoration that preceded the preliminary hearings of the Infected Blood Inquiry, and watched the moving and powerful testimony from those infected and affected by the infected blood scandal. The commemoration brought home the terrible human cost of this tragedy, and emphasised to me the importance of this Inquiry, to get to the truth of what happened, and provide the answers that the people infected and affected so desperately need. When the public Inquiry was launched in July this year, I deferred making a decision on whether to appoint a panel to sit with Sir Brian until he was able to take the view of core participants. Sir Brian Langstaff wrote to me this week following the preliminary hearings, and has advised me that he has now done so, and there has been no demand for a panel. In the place of single experts, sitting as panellists, Sir Brian is establishing expert groups to provide openness and transparency across a range of truly expert opinion. He recommended that I should not appoint co-determining panel members. I accept his recommendation. In his letter Sir Brian also called for action in relation to financial and psychological support for the affected and infected. The Government will consider those comments and Sir Brian’s recommendations carefully and will respond as soon as possible. The Cabinet Office takes seriously its role as sponsor to the Infected Blood Inquiry and is determined to do all it can to support the Inquiry with its work. Regrettably, an administrative error earlier this year has come to light, which had delayed the circulation of an instruction to government departments about the retention of records. I can reassure the public that this has resulted in no actual harm, but it is an error for which I apologise to the Inquiry, and most importantly, to the people infected and affected. The facts are these: Cabinet Office official circulated a Government-wide notice on 3rd April this year, instructing departments to preserve all information relevant to the Infected Blood Inquiry. A further, more comprehensive message was issued to departments by Cabinet Office on 11th June. However, following a query from the Inquiry about the notice, Cabinet Office officials discovered that the 3rd April email containing the retention notice did not reach its recipients, due to the failure of the collective IT address used. My officials have provided a detailed explanation to the Inquiry which will be published on the Inquiry’s website. Since the error was discovered, all relevant departments and relevant areas within departments have worked urgently to confirm that they have not destroyed any documents relevant to the Inquiry during the period between 3rd April and 11th June. Because of their size and the complexity of some of the records they hold, HM Courts and Tribunals Service and the Legal Aid Agency are continuing to work to provide this assurance and have committed to doing so as urgently as possible. The Department of Health and Social Care put in place a moratorium on the destruction of historical records as soon as the Inquiry was announced in July 2017. No material damage has resulted from this administrative error, but I am very sorry it occurred, and I would like to reassure the public that the Cabinet Office will learn the lessons from this to avoid such an error occurring in future.